[Archived] Roque Santa Cruz Thread

[dingles staying down 4ever]

City have been linked with yet another forward

http://www.caughtoffside.com/2008/10/23/ma...solute-bargain/

Roque will have plenty of competition at Eastlands won't he?

[imy9]

At the time of the Duff contract that fee was put in to protect us. there was no likelihood of anyone paying it. It was only the Chelsea takeover that moved the goalposts. It was like the massive release fees there are on a lot of players like Kaka and so on now.

Why would we need to protect ourselves if JW would never sell a player against the wishes of a manager? It was put in there because the club realises that when we receive a suitable offer we will sell, the manager will have no say in the matter. The same reason why all the big clubs have clauses in major players contracts.

[den]

Why would we need to protect ourselves if JW would never sell a player against the wishes of a manager? It was put in there because the club realises that when we receive a suitable offer we will sell, the manager will have no say in the matter. The same reason why all the big clubs have clauses in major players contracts.

You don't half spout some tripe imy.

[ABBEY]

Do you know something den ...i do believe you to be correct

[LeChuck]

At the time of the Duff contract that fee was put in to protect us. there was no likelihood of anyone paying it. It was only the Chelsea takeover that moved the goalposts. It was like the massive release fees there are on a lot of players like Kaka and so on now.

Protect us how?

I don't believe Kaka has a release fee, I've done a quick Google and nothing comes up. Top players in Spain have them, but that's because it's in the Spanish regulations that players have to have a release fee in their contract. Top clubs in England and Italy don't do it.

[gumboots]

Protect us how?

I don't believe Kaka has a release fee, I've done a quick Google and nothing comes up. Top players in Spain have them, but that's because it's in the Spanish regulations that players have to have a release fee in their contract. Top clubs in England and Italy don't do it.

Duff was a hot property at the time. the fee was huge. Nobody was paying that kind of money. Duff signs contract with big release fee. If it's triggered we get big fee. If clubs decide they want him they have to pay. But it seems more likely that nobody will raise that kind of money and we therefore keep the player. Either way we should win. Money in the bank or a player we don't want to sell and who is at that time quite happy to stay. The fact that the Duff money didn't do us much good and we missed the player for a long time was not foreseen. I know we don't have to have release fees but for smaller clubs like ours it's sometimes necessary to put them in to either get the player to sign or to get enough cash if he goes. What alters situations is clubs like Chelsea at the time of Duff going or City now suddenly getting mega rich and therefore being able to meet the fee without spending more than what is pocket money to them.

[thenodrog]

If you read the thread, you'll realise that I wasn't even talking about Bentley. I was responding to a poster who was suggesting that if we got a big offer for Rocky, the rovers board would sell him. For many years, as far as I know, it's been the managers decision to buy/sell players, not John Williams.

Too may Paulettes around at the moment.

I prefer 'Paul Dancers' Den.

It does seem that the board usually do force managers to sell a players(s) if they want to bring in another.

As for Hughes last season only wild speculation but I think a large part of his disillusionment could have started with the selling Sav fiasco. The two of them and Bowen go back a long time and it must have been difficult enough telling Sav that they were off-loading him in order to buy another and then the board not being prepared to back Hughes. Hughes always gives the impression of being a man of integrity and of his word, and the board forced him to break it.

[DingleBaiter]

I prefer 'Paul Dancers' Den.

It does seem that the board usually do force managers to sell a players(s) if they want to bring in another.

As for Hughes last season only wild speculation but I think a large part of his disillusionment could have started with the selling Sav fiasco. The two of them and Bowen go back a long time and it must have been difficult enough telling Sav that they were off-loading him in order to buy another and then the board not being prepared to back Hughes. Hughes always gives the impression of being a man of integrity and of his word, and the board forced him to break it.

So which player was Sav muscled out for then?

Clearly you've missed the bit were Hughes upset Sav so much he stormed out of BV crying when he realised he wouldn't be an automatic first-choice post-injury. Cue downward spiral in relationship between Sav and 'his Dad' (as some of the seniors jokingly called MH). Think you will find is somewhat less wild speculation, despite what it suits you to believe

Selling Sav seemed controversial at the time - esp with the lack of like-for-like/better replacement (deja vu) - but in hindsight it was exactly the right decision commercially. Kudos to Hughes for making a strong football decision that proved correct.

[thenodrog]

So which player was Sav muscled out for then?

Clearly you've missed the bit were Hughes upset Sav so much he stormed out of BV crying when he realised he wouldn't be an automatic first-choice post-injury. Cue downward spiral in relationship between Sav and 'his Dad' (as some of the seniors jokingly called MH). Think you will find is somewhat less than wild speculation, despite what it suits you to believe

Selling Sav seemed controversial at the time - esp with the lack of like-for-like/better replacement (deja vu) - but in hindsight it was exactly the right decision commercially. Kudos to Hughes for making a strong football decision that proved correct.

According to this board and the press 1. Huddleston and 2. Koumas..... or both. Sav was knackered but was on big wages rem.

Why are you being so abrasive DB? Is no one allowed to post speculation anymore?

[dingles staying down 4ever]

I prefer 'Paul Dancers' Den.

It does seem that the board usually do force managers to sell a players(s) if they want to bring in another.

As for Hughes last season only wild speculation but I think a large part of his disillusionment could have started with the selling Sav fiasco. The two of them and Bowen go back a long time and it must have been difficult enough telling Sav that they were off-loading him in order to buy another and then the board not being prepared to back Hughes. Hughes always gives the impression of being a man of integrity and of his word, and the board forced him to break it.

i suspect Hughes' disillusionment was that he was promised funds money in the summer then in January but neither materialised. This in turn forced Hughes hand in selling Savage who by his own admission was sulking. He did not raise enough money to bring in an alternative. I don't think the board forced Hughes to sell but Hughes himself decided that Savage could be dispensed with.

[den]

Rocky going for a scan today on his calf. Reccurrence of his previous injury.

Sounds like he might be missing for a while.

[CAPT KAYOS]

Rocky going for a scan today on his calf. Reccurrence of his previous injury.

Sounds like he might be missing for a while.

To me he has been missing for a while - including the back end of last season

Cetainly not been the Rocky we know he can be for a while despite the injuries.

[Bobby G]

He was always injured at Bayern. Had the potential but never had a run of games. Last season, it wasnt that he was just at Blackburn but that he was FIT! Now this season playing every other game, he hasnt been the player we know. Similar case to Bellamy...

[ABBEY]

quote******jens******** from a bronco site ,a german bronco fan to be exact who ive had the pleasure of a few shots of jd in denver with..

the guy was pure crap and always injured here. they signed him for like 5m € when he was like 16 or 17 as they thought he´d be invaluable in 3-4 years and look how it turned out for them.

hope you enjoyed your hols.

unquote

[T4E]

I prefer 'Paul Dancers' Den.

Since those hovering in the middle waiting to see what happens are yet to be given a label, perhaps we could call them the "Paul Bearers"

[RibbleValleyRover]

It could just be a case that we have been rushing him back too soon after injuries. It was obvious he looked half fit against Boro, Ince probably felt he had to bring him back after the performance against Bolton.

Thats the problem with players who are vital to the team, managers will take risks and play them even though they aren't fully fit.

[G Somerset Rover]

If Roque is out for a considerable period then I think we're in trouble. I can't see any of our remaining strikers being able to play up top in a 4-5-1 (This seems Ince's preferred formation), and a rejuvinated Benni aside I just don't see where the goals will come from.

Injuries can define a season; we've lost Dunny and Reidy long-term, and what with Grella and RSC suffering recurring injuries, it would appear that they may take their toil.

[CAPT KAYOS]

He was always injured at Bayern. Had the potential but never had a run of games. Last season, it wasnt that he was just at Blackburn but that he was FIT! Now this season playing every other game, he hasnt been the player we know. Similar case to Bellamy...

But here he has had sufficient runs of games - my view is that he has virtually been a lone prowler up front and this has affected his game, but he has still not looked sharp even when oppotunities have come his way.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Any news on Roque's scan today?

Checked the official site and haven't seen anything about it.

[thenodrog]

To me he has been missing for a while - including the back end of last season

Cetainly not been the Rocky we know he can be for a while despite the injuries.

To quote Stan T, "It's obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse". The reason (no matter how unpalatable to some, and how despised he is by others) is that David Bentley is at Spurs.

[philipl]

To quote Stan T, "It's obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse". The reason (no matter how unpalatable to some, and how despised he is by others) is that David Bentley is at Spurs.

Exactly

...or an adequate replacement

Any news on his injury- didn't a calf injury keep him out for a whole season at Bayern? Not being alarmist but.

[philipl]

Answering my own post- it's a grade 1 calf muscle tear and he is out for two weeks.

[G Somerset Rover]

I can't see us getting anything whatsoever out of the Chelsea game anyhow, so it'l be tomorrow and the Sunderland fixtures that we'll miss Roque the most. It's been too much of a stop/start season for him and I just fear that last season was a one off with regards to him and injuries.

[ABBEY]

this isnt a post against ince in any shape or form ,but it does make you wonder what hughsies back room staff did differently than the present regime and the german regime with keeping him fit?

[philipl]

I can't see us getting anything whatsoever out of the Chelsea game anyhow, so it'l be tomorrow and the Sunderland fixtures that we'll miss Roque the most. It's been too much of a stop/start season for him and I just fear that last season was a one off with regards to him and injuries.

It is probably not true because Crazy Ivan cannot find it!

(only on one news service at the moment).

Being serious, without good crosses, RSC can be nowhere near as effective as last season. Benni now has to step up and turn the promising glimpses of being back to form into consistent performances. If he does that we stand a chance- otherwise we are in deep trouble in the fixtures RSC is out for.